In a religious sense I don't believe in god. If I have to pick my personal faith or any definition of religion I'd probably say I'm agnostic.

I believe we are all made of star dust, so in a way I don't believe in divine intervention.

However I believe in basics of Christianity or religion in general. And that is be as good as you can be. Have morals and ethics. What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others. So if that is some inner god, I believe in it.

To me, God = Reason.

A kind of modern pick n mix approach, hey. Believing in the basics of 'Christianity or religion in general' is such a sweeping and simultaneously amorphous credo that it would allow you to kill apostates, allow and disallow contraception and accept grotesque and humiliating caste system-and that's just for starters. It's idolatry to define god in your own terms, hardly something that religious types approve of.

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

In a religious sense I don't believe in god. If I have to pick my personal faith or any definition of religion I'd probably say I'm agnostic.

I believe we are all made of star dust, so in a way I don't believe in divine intervention.

However I believe in basics of Christianity or religion in general. And that is be as good as you can be. Have morals and ethics. What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others. So if that is some inner god, I believe in it.

To me, God = Reason.

A kind of modern pick n mix approach, hey. Believing in the basics of 'Christianity or religion in general' is such a sweeping and simultaneously amorphous credo that it would allow you to kill apostates, allow and disallow contraception and accept grotesque and humiliating caste system-and that's just for starters. It's idolatry to define god in your own terms, hardly something that religious types approve of.

don't know If I understood the essence of your reply, but I kinda don't care what those religious type approve or not. I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe or not. Especially religion.

God is just a term, and it can be defined in many ways. Orthodox Christianity focus more on the morals and down to earth questions, unlike some christian fundamentalists, so there's at least something I can understand in religion, which often do more damage than good.

In a religious sense I don't believe in god. If I have to pick my personal faith or any definition of religion I'd probably say I'm agnostic.

I believe we are all made of star dust, so in a way I don't believe in divine intervention.

However I believe in basics of Christianity or religion in general. And that is be as good as you can be. Have morals and ethics. What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others. So if that is some inner god, I believe in it.

To me, God = Reason.

A kind of modern pick n mix approach, hey. Believing in the basics of 'Christianity or religion in general' is such a sweeping and simultaneously amorphous credo that it would allow you to kill apostates, allow and disallow contraception and accept grotesque and humiliating caste system-and that's just for starters. It's idolatry to define god in your own terms, hardly something that religious types approve of.

don't know If I understood the essence of your reply, but I kinda don't care what those religious type approve or not. I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe or not. Especially religion.

God is just a term, and it can be defined in many ways. Orthodox Christianity focus more on the morals and down to earth questions, unlike some christian fundamentalists, so there's at least something I can understand in religion, which often do more damage than good.

well i was using your 'However I believe in basics of Christianity or religion in general' as my starting point-if you genuinely did believe the basics of religion in general, you'd have to believe a lot of contradictory stuff. Seems to me your point was vacillating between some kind of new age, none specific acceptance of aspects of religion, with a kind of contemporary 'i don't need anyone to tell me what to think' approach-pick'n'mix.

i don't think God is ever 'defined' as such, at least in most religions- certainly the Abrahamic ones. they tend towards seeing god as ineffable-as i've said, to attempt to define god is idolatrous-it makes a human image of the divine.

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

In a religious sense I don't believe in god. If I have to pick my personal faith or any definition of religion I'd probably say I'm agnostic.

I believe we are all made of star dust, so in a way I don't believe in divine intervention.

However I believe in basics of Christianity or religion in general. And that is be as good as you can be. Have morals and ethics. What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others. So if that is some inner god, I believe in it.

To me, God = Reason.

A kind of modern pick n mix approach, hey. Believing in the basics of 'Christianity or religion in general' is such a sweeping and simultaneously amorphous credo that it would allow you to kill apostates, allow and disallow contraception and accept grotesque and humiliating caste system-and that's just for starters. It's idolatry to define god in your own terms, hardly something that religious types approve of.

don't know If I understood the essence of your reply, but I kinda don't care what those religious type approve or not. I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe or not. Especially religion.

God is just a term, and it can be defined in many ways. Orthodox Christianity focus more on the morals and down to earth questions, unlike some christian fundamentalists, so there's at least something I can understand in religion, which often do more damage than good.

well i was using your 'However I believe in basics of Christianity or religion in general' as my starting point-if you genuinely did believe the basics of religion in general, you'd have to believe a lot of contradictory stuff. Seems to me your point was vacillating between some kind of new age, none specific acceptance of aspects of religion, with a kind of contemporary 'i don't need anyone to tell me what to think' approach-pick'n'mix.

i don't think God is ever 'defined' as such, at least in most religions- certainly the Abrahamic ones. they tend towards seeing god as ineffable-as i've said, to attempt to define god is idolatrous-it makes a human image of the divine.

As I've already said, orthodox Christianity doesn't necessarily always name god as something divine. They focus more on spirituality of the individuals. Preaching something good, telling us to be as better person as we can be.

Also there are many religious people here who don't contradict themselves exactly for the reasons I've stated. They don't even deny scientists, nor the Big Bang theory. I can understand those people, because they show at least some sense of reality and reason, which is kinda totally opposite of what fundamentalist believe.I have yet to find any intelligent conversation with fundamentalist, because as soon as they say things like they don't believe dinosaurs ever existed, I lose them.

I hate religion in general, but as everything in life, you can always find something good about it, because after all it thought me some of the most important things in life. That is to have, unconditional love towards your family and closest friends.

Anything evolving divine intervention by any religion, that's where I lose interest. That's where I believe we need to turn towards scientists.

In a religious sense I don't believe in god. If I have to pick my personal faith or any definition of religion I'd probably say I'm agnostic.

I believe we are all made of star dust, so in a way I don't believe in divine intervention.

However I believe in basics of Christianity or religion in general. And that is be as good as you can be. Have morals and ethics. What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others. So if that is some inner god, I believe in it.

To me, God = Reason.

A kind of modern pick n mix approach, hey. Believing in the basics of 'Christianity or religion in general' is such a sweeping and simultaneously amorphous credo that it would allow you to kill apostates, allow and disallow contraception and accept grotesque and humiliating caste system-and that's just for starters. It's idolatry to define god in your own terms, hardly something that religious types approve of.

don't know If I understood the essence of your reply, but I kinda don't care what those religious type approve or not. I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe or not. Especially religion.

God is just a term, and it can be defined in many ways. Orthodox Christianity focus more on the morals and down to earth questions, unlike some christian fundamentalists, so there's at least something I can understand in religion, which often do more damage than good.

well i was using your 'However I believe in basics of Christianity or religion in general' as my starting point-if you genuinely did believe the basics of religion in general, you'd have to believe a lot of contradictory stuff. Seems to me your point was vacillating between some kind of new age, none specific acceptance of aspects of religion, with a kind of contemporary 'i don't need anyone to tell me what to think' approach-pick'n'mix.

i don't think God is ever 'defined' as such, at least in most religions- certainly the Abrahamic ones. they tend towards seeing god as ineffable-as i've said, to attempt to define god is idolatrous-it makes a human image of the divine.

As I've already said, orthodox Christianity doesn't necessarily always name god as something divine. They focus more on spirituality of the individuals. Preaching something good, telling us to be as better person as we can be.

Also there are many religious people here who don't contradict themselves exactly for the reasons I've stated. They don't even deny scientists, nor the Big Bang theory. I can understand those people, because they show at least some sense of reality and reason, which is kinda totally opposite of what fundamentalist believe.I have yet to find any intelligent conversation with fundamentalist, because as soon as they say things like they don't believe dinosaurs ever existed, I lose them.

I hate religion in general, but as everything in life, you can always find something good about it, because after all it thought me some of the most important things in life. That is to have, unconditional love towards your family and closest friends.

Anything evolving divine intervention by any religion, that's where I lose interest. That's where I believe we need to turn towards scientists.

Well unless it's suddenly had a reverse Damascene conversion, then orthodox Christianity does see god as divine, in fact Christ's divinity is central to Christianity-has been since the fourth century in terms of orthodoxy . Ok there are new age versions of Christianity a la Don Qupitt, but this represents a very small minority, and I'd argue that his approach owes more to enlightenment thinking than traditional Christianity. As for religions appropriating scientific truths., part of the reason they've had to bend to the weight of secular evidence presented with people as diverse as Lyell, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Locke, Kant, Hume etc is that they tried to construct a rationalistic approach that parallels science in the first place. By emphasizing the literal truth of scripture they fell into the 'enlightenment trap' i mentioned earlier. Once the bible and stories like creation-in which the world is created in six days is taken literally, rather than being seen as allegorical, then you're gonna have a big problem with the empirical evidence. But that literalism is a modern notion, so that, for example, God is seen as a reality like the atom, who's existence we can prove-but so much for scientific rationalism being misappropriated. It's those who accept the allegorical nature of scripture who are able to reconcile their beliefs with modernity.

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

As for religions appropriating scientific truths., part of the reason they've had to bend to the weight of secular evidence presented with people as diverse as Lyell, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Locke, Kant, Hume etc is that they tried to construct a rationalistic approach that parallels science in the first place.

That's true.

However I don't believe religion should interfere with science, considering how much damage religion inflicted upon scientists in the past. Not to mention Copernicus, and many more others who were hungry for knowledge simply by doing scientific researches, while being completely ignored and oppressed by the church.

So you see I have plenty of reasons to simply ignore religion, but I've chosen to extract something good about it.

As for Christ, I can't speak for other churches, but the one I know. That is Orthodox church. There will always be those who take things from the bible literally, but there are far more others who see Christ simply as a good person trying to preach good.Nothing mythical, nothing superstitious, but an ordinary man from people preaching morals and kindness.

As for religions appropriating scientific truths., part of the reason they've had to bend to the weight of secular evidence presented with people as diverse as Lyell, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Locke, Kant, Hume etc is that they tried to construct a rationalistic approach that parallels science in the first place.

That's true.

However I don't believe religion should interfere with science, considering how much damage religion inflicted upon scientists in the past. Not to mention Copernicus, and many more others who were hungry for knowledge simply by doing scientific researches, while being completely ignored and oppressed by the church.

So you see I have plenty of reasons to simply ignore religion, but I've chosen to extract something good about it.

As for Christ, I can't speak for other churches, but the one I know. That is Orthodox church. There will always be those who take things from the bible literally, but there are far more others who see Christ simply as a good person trying to preach good.Nothing mythical, nothing superstitious, but an ordinary man from people preaching morals and kindness.

but if you don't believe in god and aren't religious, why do you 'extract' something good from it in the moral sense, after all you must believe that religions are man made, ergo their morality-even the good bits, are the creations of man-why look to religion at all? as a man you have it in you to work out what is good don't you?

Christianity has increasingly taken it's flavor from secularism. At one time it was accepted that heresy meant death, Pope lucius of the counter reformation said 'Even if my own father was a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him'. This shows the distance we've traveled from the age of faith, and that those religious 'truths' have been worn down by secular belief and from within the church itself. It isn't god or some divinely blessed institutions that changed the world for the better, but hard fought battles by those individuals who undermined the oppression and cruelty that lay within the churches teachings.

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

I told you already. Because maybe the sense of unconditional love between family members and closest friends wouldn't be so emphasized if it hadn't been for 'religion'. In spite of religion, I don't have any preference, but the only that's closest to me and the only I've been hearing the most about is orthodox christianity which is totally different from protestant or roman catholic church, for the reasons I've already mentioned. So your argument about the pope isn't valid, because it doesn't apply to the orthodox church at all.

Religion should be something good, as some of them are, but unfortunately religion is just another institution ran by the bad people.

We shouldn't talk in circles, but it seems you don't understand what I'm saying here. We both express our protest towards religion, but it's not that simple.

It's similar like communism and fascism. Both terms interpreted so differently by dictators who just converted its meaning to their cause.But let's not dwell into it because it's not the current subject here.

In my opinion religion should stand for something spiritual, inspirational and as the messenger of good will. Nothing superstitious.

Christianity has increasingly taken it's flavor from secularism. At one time it was accepted that heresy meant death, Pope lucius of the counter reformation said 'Even if my own father was a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him'. This shows the distance we've traveled from the age of faith, and that those religious 'truths' have been worn down by secular belief and from within the church itself. It isn't god or some divinely blessed institutions that changed the world for the better, but hard fought battles by those individuals who undermined the oppression and cruelty that lay within the churches teachings.

It's true they have noved forward in some areas. More puzzling that they haven't moved at all in others. The only reason Christ is assumed to be divine is by order of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who refused to bow to a "mere human". With Roman Emperors long gone why are they not admitting Christ was never divine?

I told you already. Because maybe the sense of unconditional love between family members and closest friends wouldn't be so emphasized if it hadn't been for 'religion'. In spite of religion, I don't have any preference, but the only that's closest to me and the only I've been hearing the most about is orthodox christianity which is totally different from protestant or roman catholic church, for the reasons I've already mentioned. So your argument about the pope isn't valid, because it doesn't apply to the orthodox church at all.

Religion should be something good, as some of them are, but unfortunately religion is just another institution ran by the bad people.

We shouldn't talk in circles, but it seems you don't understand what I'm saying here. We both express our protest towards religion, but it's not that simple.

It's similar like communism and fascism. Both terms interpreted so differently by dictators who just converted its meaning to their cause.But let's not dwell into it because it's not the current subject here.

In my opinion religion should stand for something spiritual, inspirational and as the messenger of good will. Nothing superstitious.

the point about the pope is that Christian morality has had its moral values increasingly shaped by modernity-thatís the point. I was showing how far it had come since an age in which there was genuinely christian authoritarianism. Given that religions are man made-which is your view too, and that the secular increasingly shapes the religious, why are you reverent for aspects of religious morality, when those moral aspects are increasingly born of secularism. The implication that unconditional love is somehow Ďemphasizedí within religion clearly implies that you think this would be lacking outside that paradigm, thatís the point you donít seem to be addressing. Thereís no going around in circles here, but rather youíre inability to either address or recognise that contradiction. Youíre dismissal of what is orthodoxy is equally glib, in that it rejects mainstream chritianity while offering nothing in itís place. Orthodoxy is what is mainstream by definition.

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

I told you already. Because maybe the sense of unconditional love between family members and closest friends wouldn't be so emphasized if it hadn't been for 'religion'. In spite of religion, I don't have any preference, but the only that's closest to me and the only I've been hearing the most about is orthodox christianity which is totally different from protestant or roman catholic church, for the reasons I've already mentioned. So your argument about the pope isn't valid, because it doesn't apply to the orthodox church at all.

Religion should be something good, as some of them are, but unfortunately religion is just another institution ran by the bad people.

We shouldn't talk in circles, but it seems you don't understand what I'm saying here. We both express our protest towards religion, but it's not that simple.

It's similar like communism and fascism. Both terms interpreted so differently by dictators who just converted its meaning to their cause.But let's not dwell into it because it's not the current subject here.

In my opinion religion should stand for something spiritual, inspirational and as the messenger of good will. Nothing superstitious.

the point about the pope is that Christian morality has had its moral values increasingly shaped by modernity-thatís the point. I was showing how far it had come since an age in which there was genuinely christian authoritarianism. Given that religions are man made-which is your view too, and that the secular increasingly shapes the religious, why are you reverent for aspects of religious morality, when those moral aspects are increasingly born of secularism. The implication that unconditional love is somehow Ďemphasizedí within religion clearly implies that you think this would be lacking outside that paradigm, thatís the point you donít seem to be addressing. Thereís no going around in circles here, but rather youíre inability to either address or recognise that contradiction. Youíre dismissal of what is orthodoxy is equally glib, in that it rejects mainstream chritianity while offering nothing in itís place. Orthodoxy is what is mainstream by definition.

We both agreed that religion in general is bad, right?Although I don't think you understand the philosophy of Orthodox church. All I'm saying that the Orthodox church 'emphasized' that unconditional love. There's no doubt we would have it if religion didn't exist, all I'm saying that orthodox church emphasized that, and still keeps its tradition.

Also I don't know what is mainstream christianity, as I don't follow religion at all.I've been trying to address this to you from my 1st post, but somehow you think I'm defending religion. All I said is that I 'extracted' only one good thing from it, and that religion isn't that simple, the way you see it.

Christianity has increasingly taken it's flavor from secularism. At one time it was accepted that heresy meant death, Pope lucius of the counter reformation said 'Even if my own father was a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him'. This shows the distance we've traveled from the age of faith, and that those religious 'truths' have been worn down by secular belief and from within the church itself. It isn't god or some divinely blessed institutions that changed the world for the better, but hard fought battles by those individuals who undermined the oppression and cruelty that lay within the churches teachings.

It's true they have noved forward in some areas. More puzzling that they haven't moved at all in others. The only reason Christ is assumed to be divine is by order of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who refused to bow to a "mere human". With Roman Emperors long gone why are they not admitting Christ was never divine?

Well, itís a little more complex than that, but yeah. Christs divinity had already been assumed by at least most christian groups by the fourth century, and even within Arianism there was a belief that he was divine but he hadnít existed eternally-as God had. It was the Arian controversythat was the stumbling block to Christian unification.But for most Christians today christ is divine, itís not some conjecture dependent on some fourth century disagreement about what should be orthodoxy and what should be heresy or what should be canonical or non-canonical. Christs divinity is central to Christianity for many reasons. For example, if Jesus were actually just a man, how could he redeem our sins? Give us life eternal through faith in him? His cruxifiction becomes just a pointless act rather than a symbol of salvation and itís these and other reasons that are central to what it is to be a Christian, he is, according to Christians, the massiah prophisied.This belief is crucial to Christianity in a way that watering itís moral doctrins down in other areas isnít, The catholic churches opposition to contraception for example, is one area where you have a clash of modernity and religion, but if Catholicism eventually loses it will survive, in a way it couldnít survive the loss of Christís divinity.

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

I told you already. Because maybe the sense of unconditional love between family members and closest friends wouldn't be so emphasized if it hadn't been for 'religion'. In spite of religion, I don't have any preference, but the only that's closest to me and the only I've been hearing the most about is orthodox christianity which is totally different from protestant or roman catholic church, for the reasons I've already mentioned. So your argument about the pope isn't valid, because it doesn't apply to the orthodox church at all.

Religion should be something good, as some of them are, but unfortunately religion is just another institution ran by the bad people.

We shouldn't talk in circles, but it seems you don't understand what I'm saying here. We both express our protest towards religion, but it's not that simple.

It's similar like communism and fascism. Both terms interpreted so differently by dictators who just converted its meaning to their cause.But let's not dwell into it because it's not the current subject here.

In my opinion religion should stand for something spiritual, inspirational and as the messenger of good will. Nothing superstitious.

the point about the pope is that Christian morality has had its moral values increasingly shaped by modernity-thatís the point. I was showing how far it had come since an age in which there was genuinely christian authoritarianism. Given that religions are man made-which is your view too, and that the secular increasingly shapes the religious, why are you reverent for aspects of religious morality, when those moral aspects are increasingly born of secularism. The implication that unconditional love is somehow Ďemphasizedí within religion clearly implies that you think this would be lacking outside that paradigm, thatís the point you donít seem to be addressing. Thereís no going around in circles here, but rather youíre inability to either address or recognise that contradiction. Youíre dismissal of what is orthodoxy is equally glib, in that it rejects mainstream chritianity while offering nothing in itís place. Orthodoxy is what is mainstream by definition.

We both agreed that religion in general is bad, right?Although I don't think you understand the philosophy of Orthodox church. All I'm saying that the Orthodox church 'emphasized' that unconditional love. There's no doubt we would have it if religion didn't exist, all I'm saying that orthodox church emphasized that, and still keeps its tradition.

Also I don't know what is mainstream christianity, as I don't follow religion at all.I've been trying to address this to you from my 1st post, but somehow you think I'm defending religion. All I said is that I 'extracted' only one good thing from it, and that religion isn't that simple, the way you see it.

You don't think i 'understand the philosophy of Orthodox church', what the hell does that mean?which church are you on about? you've already asserted that 'orthodox Christianity doesn't necessarily always name god as something divine' which is rubbish, and you lack an elementary understanding of Christianity-i think it's just straightforward that god is divine within Christianity, end of.What you have defended is idea that there are aspects of religion that can uniquely give rise to unconditional love, for example, i don't think that is unique to Christianity, if you don't why the hell mention it in relation to my point which was than religion can't offer anything morally that secular morality can. Do you actually know what you're talking about?

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

I told you already. Because maybe the sense of unconditional love between family members and closest friends wouldn't be so emphasized if it hadn't been for 'religion'. In spite of religion, I don't have any preference, but the only that's closest to me and the only I've been hearing the most about is orthodox christianity which is totally different from protestant or roman catholic church, for the reasons I've already mentioned. So your argument about the pope isn't valid, because it doesn't apply to the orthodox church at all.

Religion should be something good, as some of them are, but unfortunately religion is just another institution ran by the bad people.

We shouldn't talk in circles, but it seems you don't understand what I'm saying here. We both express our protest towards religion, but it's not that simple.

It's similar like communism and fascism. Both terms interpreted so differently by dictators who just converted its meaning to their cause.But let's not dwell into it because it's not the current subject here.

In my opinion religion should stand for something spiritual, inspirational and as the messenger of good will. Nothing superstitious.

the point about the pope is that Christian morality has had its moral values increasingly shaped by modernity-thatís the point. I was showing how far it had come since an age in which there was genuinely christian authoritarianism. Given that religions are man made-which is your view too, and that the secular increasingly shapes the religious, why are you reverent for aspects of religious morality, when those moral aspects are increasingly born of secularism. The implication that unconditional love is somehow Ďemphasizedí within religion clearly implies that you think this would be lacking outside that paradigm, thatís the point you donít seem to be addressing. Thereís no going around in circles here, but rather youíre inability to either address or recognise that contradiction. Youíre dismissal of what is orthodoxy is equally glib, in that it rejects mainstream chritianity while offering nothing in itís place. Orthodoxy is what is mainstream by definition.

We both agreed that religion in general is bad, right?Although I don't think you understand the philosophy of Orthodox church. All I'm saying that the Orthodox church 'emphasized' that unconditional love. There's no doubt we would have it if religion didn't exist, all I'm saying that orthodox church emphasized that, and still keeps its tradition.

Also I don't know what is mainstream christianity, as I don't follow religion at all.I've been trying to address this to you from my 1st post, but somehow you think I'm defending religion. All I said is that I 'extracted' only one good thing from it, and that religion isn't that simple, the way you see it.

You don't think i 'understand the philosophy of Orthodox church', what the hell does that mean?which church are you on about? you've already asserted that 'orthodox Christianity doesn't necessarily always name god as something divine' which is rubbish, and you lack an elementary understanding of Christianity-i think it's just straightforward that god is divine within Christianity, end of.What you have defended is idea that there are aspects of religion that can uniquely give rise to unconditional love, for example, i don't think that is unique to Christianity, if you don't why the hell mention it in relation to my point which was than religion can't offer anything morally that secular morality can. Do you actually know what you're talking about?

I know perfectly what I'm talking about. I was talking about orthodox christians, (serbian in this case) non fundamentalists. I had a discussion with a guy who finished theology university. What they study, they focus more on morals and the analysis of the bible, rather than taking it literally.

And If I somehow say 'I was raised in christian family' it doesn't mean I was baptized or church goer. In fact I've never been to church.All I was saying that I was raised in christian manner. That's just a saying, and somehow you take my words literally about Christianity.

If you think that Christianity is all about Jesus being divine , how on earth I happen to know many self proclaimed christians who believe in a Big Bang Theory? or belie we are all made of star dust?

Btw, I really didn't see any reason for you going after me, but whatever I'm already getting tired of this.

I told you already. Because maybe the sense of unconditional love between family members and closest friends wouldn't be so emphasized if it hadn't been for 'religion'. In spite of religion, I don't have any preference, but the only that's closest to me and the only I've been hearing the most about is orthodox christianity which is totally different from protestant or roman catholic church, for the reasons I've already mentioned. So your argument about the pope isn't valid, because it doesn't apply to the orthodox church at all.

Religion should be something good, as some of them are, but unfortunately religion is just another institution ran by the bad people.

We shouldn't talk in circles, but it seems you don't understand what I'm saying here. We both express our protest towards religion, but it's not that simple.

It's similar like communism and fascism. Both terms interpreted so differently by dictators who just converted its meaning to their cause.But let's not dwell into it because it's not the current subject here.

In my opinion religion should stand for something spiritual, inspirational and as the messenger of good will. Nothing superstitious.

the point about the pope is that Christian morality has had its moral values increasingly shaped by modernity-thatís the point. I was showing how far it had come since an age in which there was genuinely christian authoritarianism. Given that religions are man made-which is your view too, and that the secular increasingly shapes the religious, why are you reverent for aspects of religious morality, when those moral aspects are increasingly born of secularism. The implication that unconditional love is somehow Ďemphasizedí within religion clearly implies that you think this would be lacking outside that paradigm, thatís the point you donít seem to be addressing. Thereís no going around in circles here, but rather youíre inability to either address or recognise that contradiction. Youíre dismissal of what is orthodoxy is equally glib, in that it rejects mainstream chritianity while offering nothing in itís place. Orthodoxy is what is mainstream by definition.

We both agreed that religion in general is bad, right?Although I don't think you understand the philosophy of Orthodox church. All I'm saying that the Orthodox church 'emphasized' that unconditional love. There's no doubt we would have it if religion didn't exist, all I'm saying that orthodox church emphasized that, and still keeps its tradition.

Also I don't know what is mainstream christianity, as I don't follow religion at all.I've been trying to address this to you from my 1st post, but somehow you think I'm defending religion. All I said is that I 'extracted' only one good thing from it, and that religion isn't that simple, the way you see it.

You don't think i 'understand the philosophy of Orthodox church', what the hell does that mean?which church are you on about? you've already asserted that 'orthodox Christianity doesn't necessarily always name god as something divine' which is rubbish, and you lack an elementary understanding of Christianity-i think it's just straightforward that god is divine within Christianity, end of.What you have defended is idea that there are aspects of religion that can uniquely give rise to unconditional love, for example, i don't think that is unique to Christianity, if you don't why the hell mention it in relation to my point which was than religion can't offer anything morally that secular morality can. Do you actually know what you're talking about?

I know perfectly what I'm talking about. I was talking about orthodox christians, (serbian in this case) non fundamentalists. I had a discussion with a guy who finished theology university. What they study, they focus more on morals and the analysis of the bible, rather than taking it literally.

And If I somehow say 'I was raised in christian family' it doesn't mean I was baptized or church goer. In fact I've never been to church.All I was saying that I was raised in christian manner. That's just a saying, and somehow you take my words literally about Christianity.

If you think that Christianity is all about Jesus being divine , how on earth I happen to know many self proclaimed christians who believe in a Big Bang Theory? or belie we are all made of star dust?

Btw, I really didn't see any reason for you going after me, but whatever I'm already getting tired of this.

Nobody said it was 'all about Jesus being divine' i said Christ is considered divine within the overwhelming denominations of Christianity, and that includes Serbian-fact. the fact that some only take morality from the bible is their problem, why they would want to do that if they don't believe in an almighty god and that Christ is divine is beyond me. it's like spending your days reading about car maintenance if you don't believe cars should be allowed. The reason an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Christians can reconcile Christs divinity with things like the big bang theory as they see the the bible as allegorical, i've made this point already, you've just made exactly that point in relation to your friend from theological college, blimey!

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

Why most of the people when talking about god, connect it only through christian god, islamic god, ancient gods etc etc?As I sad, to me the god is simply a term to describe something bigger, some larger force.

We can go all back to the sub atomic levels where something comes up from NOTHING, protons appearing at random. Could it be that the creator(god) created that particle, can higgs boson be described as god? Can the star that provides and create life be described as god?

Christianity has increasingly taken it's flavor from secularism. At one time it was accepted that heresy meant death, Pope lucius of the counter reformation said 'Even if my own father was a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him'. This shows the distance we've traveled from the age of faith, and that those religious 'truths' have been worn down by secular belief and from within the church itself. It isn't god or some divinely blessed institutions that changed the world for the better, but hard fought battles by those individuals who undermined the oppression and cruelty that lay within the churches teachings.

It's true they have noved forward in some areas. More puzzling that they haven't moved at all in others. The only reason Christ is assumed to be divine is by order of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who refused to bow to a "mere human". With Roman Emperors long gone why are they not admitting Christ was never divine?

Well, itís a little more complex than that, but yeah. Christs divinity had already been assumed by at least most christian groups by the fourth century, and even within Arianism there was a belief that he was divine but he hadnít existed eternally-as God had. It was the Arian controversythat was the stumbling block to Christian unification.But for most Christians today christ is divine, itís not some conjecture dependent on some fourth century disagreement about what should be orthodoxy and what should be heresy or what should be canonical or non-canonical. Christs divinity is central to Christianity for many reasons. For example, if Jesus were actually just a man, how could he redeem our sins? Give us life eternal through faith in him? His cruxifiction becomes just a pointless act rather than a symbol of salvation and itís these and other reasons that are central to what it is to be a Christian, he is, according to Christians, the massiah prophisied.This belief is crucial to Christianity in a way that watering itís moral doctrins down in other areas isnít, The catholic churches opposition to contraception for example, is one area where you have a clash of modernity and religion, but if Catholicism eventually loses it will survive, in a way it couldnít survive the loss of Christís divinity.

I suppose we can conclude Constantine was an excellent CEO of Christianity after he adopted it and amended it to his own needs in concert with the other bigwigs. The scrapping of the commandment to forbid images of God was also a huge marketing success.

Christ's crucifixion is pointless either way, btw. What is the harm of being crucidied if you're divine? And no harm means no sacrifice.

Why most of the people when talking about god, connect it only through christian god, islamic god, ancient gods etc etc?As I sad, to me the god is simply a term to describe something bigger, some larger force.

We can go all back to the sub atomic levels where something comes up from NOTHING, protons appearing at random. Could it be that the creator(god) created that particle, can higgs boson be described as god? Can the star that provides and create life be described as god?

Well god to most people is usually personified as a humanoid creator, usually male.

Why most of the people when talking about god, connect it only through christian god, islamic god, ancient gods etc etc?As I sad, to me the god is simply a term to describe something bigger, some larger force.

We can go all back to the sub atomic levels where something comes up from NOTHING, protons appearing at random. Could it be that the creator(god) created that particle, can higgs boson be described as god? Can the star that provides and create life be described as god?

i've already said you can't define god, that goes at a theological level or at a philosophical level, and in fact they don't. it's meaningless to ascribe as human qualities to transcendent ineffable beings, it's just gibberish. As i've already said umpteen times, this is a post enlightenment approach that fails to understand the nature of the theists relationship with their deity.

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

Christianity has increasingly taken it's flavor from secularism. At one time it was accepted that heresy meant death, Pope lucius of the counter reformation said 'Even if my own father was a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him'. This shows the distance we've traveled from the age of faith, and that those religious 'truths' have been worn down by secular belief and from within the church itself. It isn't god or some divinely blessed institutions that changed the world for the better, but hard fought battles by those individuals who undermined the oppression and cruelty that lay within the churches teachings.

It's true they have noved forward in some areas. More puzzling that they haven't moved at all in others. The only reason Christ is assumed to be divine is by order of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who refused to bow to a "mere human". With Roman Emperors long gone why are they not admitting Christ was never divine?

Well, itís a little more complex than that, but yeah. Christs divinity had already been assumed by at least most christian groups by the fourth century, and even within Arianism there was a belief that he was divine but he hadnít existed eternally-as God had. It was the Arian controversythat was the stumbling block to Christian unification.But for most Christians today christ is divine, itís not some conjecture dependent on some fourth century disagreement about what should be orthodoxy and what should be heresy or what should be canonical or non-canonical. Christs divinity is central to Christianity for many reasons. For example, if Jesus were actually just a man, how could he redeem our sins? Give us life eternal through faith in him? His cruxifiction becomes just a pointless act rather than a symbol of salvation and itís these and other reasons that are central to what it is to be a Christian, he is, according to Christians, the massiah prophisied.This belief is crucial to Christianity in a way that watering itís moral doctrins down in other areas isnít, The catholic churches opposition to contraception for example, is one area where you have a clash of modernity and religion, but if Catholicism eventually loses it will survive, in a way it couldnít survive the loss of Christís divinity.

I suppose we can conclude Constantine was an excellent CEO of Christianity after he adopted it and amended it to his own needs in concert with the other bigwigs. The scrapping of the commandment to forbid images of God was also a huge marketing success.

Christ's crucifixion is pointless either way, btw. What is the harm of being crucidied if you're divine? And no harm means no sacrifice.

The point about the crucifixion isn't the harm per se, well it is up to a point, but that it symbolizes Gods solidarity with man, and it's by this act we are redeemed. We were kicked out of the garden of Eden and became the authors of our own fate, it's only when Christ arrives that a possibility of redemption occurs for our sins, through Christ. If Christ is man and god, then yes he does feel the agony of crucifixion, it's something that is difficult to resolve theologically and lets face it, a lot of effort has been put into trying to. I must admit even though i'm not religious i've always had an admiration for the idea of Christ as man and god, but interestingly the church has always had a battle between those who are keen to overemphasize his humanity and those who want to emphasize his divinity. The fall of man and original sin are also to a great extent fourth century constructs to deal with the theological tussle with the concept of evil-which is never resolved anyway. Satan is also created to this end too.

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way